Field Test: Revel Ranger - It Just Wants to Party

Aug 17, 2020
by Mike Levy  

PINKBIKE FIELD TEST

Revel Ranger


Words by Mike Levy, photography by Margus Riga


The all-new Ranger is the third bike in Revel's lineup (remember, the company has only been around for a few years), and it's also the ''smallest'' in their catalog, with 115mm of rear-wheel-travel and a 120mm SID Ultimate on the other end. It's rolling on 29" wheels, of course, and Revel makes some bold claims about it, saying that it was made "to enjoy the ups as much as the downs,'' and also that it'd be ''right at home at the start line of a race.''

So yeah, I think they're saying it's fast?

There are three Rangers to choose from - the one pictured here is the $7,199 USD middle child; the AXS-equipped version goes for $9,999, and the GX bike for half that.
Ranger Details

• Travel: 115mm rear / 120mm front
• Carbon frame
• Wheel size: 29"
• Head Angle: 67.5°
• Seat Tube Angle: 75.3°
• Reach: 473mm (large)
• Chainstay length: 436mm
• Sizes: SM, MD, LRG (tested), XLRG
• Weight: 26.23lb / 11.89kg
• Price: $7,199 USD
• www.revelbikes.com

Regardless of the spec, all the bits hang off the same carbon fiber frame that weighs a claimed 2,766-grams (medium, w/ shock) according to Revel. Not gonna lie, with many options coming in at well under the 2,000-gram mark, it doesn't sound all that fast. There's more to this than weight, though, and the frame is a stunner in person; both front and rear triangles, both upper and lower links, and the clevis are all carbon fiber, and there are titanium and aluminum fasteners holding it all together.

Things I like: The threaded bottom bracket, room for a large bottle inside the frame with another spot on the underside of the downtube, as well as room for a 2.6" wide rear tire. Actually, I don't like tires that big but I'm not going to complain about tons of mud clearance. Routing is internal and tube-in-tube, and the short, 439mm seat tube is also nice to see. Not only that, but Revel even has a chart on their website that helps you figure out which post to pick for your bike to get the most amount of drop.

At 5' 10" Revel says that I should be on a large-sized Ranger, and that comes with a 473mm reach and that stubby, 439mm seat tube that let me run a 170mm Crank Brothers Highline dropper. Head angles aren't everything, but it's worth noting the Ranger's 67.5-degree front-end; that's essentially the same as the SB115 that I didn't get on with, but with a 120mm fork rather 130mm. The Ranger is longer overall, as you'd expect. Compared to the Spur, its head angle is also 1.5-degrees steeper, and the 75-degree seat angle is 1-degree more relaxed. That's a lot of numbers to think about, but I'll let you guys in on a secret: Aside from sometimes having to confirm that I'm on the correct size, and assuming nothing strange is happening, I almost never even glance at a review bike's geometry chart until I'm deep into the testing process. I don't know how others do it, but I think that lets me be more open to what the bike is "telling me" me when I ride it.

Revel says they wanted the Ranger to be a fast, efficient bike, and that its 'Canfield Brothers Formula' suspension layout accomplishes exactly that. CBF is a dual-link, co-rotating system, meaning both the upper and lower links rotate clockwise, with a clevis to drive the SIDLuxe shock and deliver 115mm of travel.



Revel Ranger review Margus Riga photo
FIELD NOTES

Revel Ranger review Margus Riga photo
Revel Ranger review Margus Riga photo

Climbing

Remember when I said that, relatively speaking, the Ranger's 2,900-gram frame isn't the lightest? The truth is that a bike doesn't need to be a flyweight to be quick, but it does need to use an efficient-feeling suspension system. The ones that are good at it, like Spot's Living Link, dw-link, and a few others, add life and energy to a bike, and the Ranger's CBF layout does the same. Yes, there were much lighter bikes to ride, and it also finished second-to-last in both our bro-science Efficiency Test and total lap time... But wow, it feels like an absolute rocketship on the trail. The clock might not lie, but I can only report on what I experience, and what I experienced was the desire to go flat-out for most of every ride.

That's the nice thing about an efficient suspension system; it's kinda like it rewards you more for your hard work than something less responsive, and therefore you're more likely to put in that work. All of a sudden your riding buddies are wondering which Russian website you ordered your ''herbal medicine'' from, and you're the jerk who asks "ready to drop in?" as soon as they get to the top. I realize that doesn't square with my timing, but it's worth noting that I also bagged a handful of PRs on the Ranger while riding trails outside of our test loop.

What happens when you get to the kind of sections where skill counts for more than squats? There were times on the Transition Spur when it felt like I'd never clean a patch of shiny roots that some jerk planted right in the middle of that sharp uphill lefthander, but the Ranger seemed to be more manageable. Mind you, while the Yeti SB115 and Cannondale Scalpel SE 1 are happy to be steered around troubles, both the Spur and Ranger give you the sensation that you're swinging the bike's front-end around the rear tire's contact patch that isn't moving at all. At those tipping-over speeds, the black Revel was more of a friend than the Spur, but neither can match Yeti or Cannondale. But hey, just ignore me if you do most of your climbing on gravel roads.


Revel Ranger review Margus Riga photo

Revel Ranger review Margus Riga photo
Revel Ranger review Margus Riga photo

Descending

The Ranger's long-stroke dropper post, short stem, and wide handlebar all say, “Why the hell are you wearing lycra, Levy?” and my only answer is that my boss made me do it. I think I might have confused some other riders who expected me to pick my way slowly down anything remotely challenging. Yeah, not on this bike. This thing is a competent, capable party bike that was probably cringing every time I threw a leg over it while wearing my enforced sausage suit.

I get to ride a lot of different bikes, and a not so small part of the gig is being able to get on a new-to-you machine and not just ride it well, but also quickly figure out what's going on before you try to explain it. And most bikes that look like they make sense, do make sense on the trail, but there is often a ride or three where I'm still not sure if we're gonna be friends or not.
Timed Testing

Our timed lap for the trail bikes was just shy of 20 minutes long and split into three sections. First, we powered up a smooth section of switchbacks before starting up a more technical, twisty section of trail that tested the bike's slow-speed handling and traction with tired legs. After that, we evaluated how the bikes maintained speed on a short bumpy traverse before the main descent, comprising of a small rock roll before a series of rough, suspension-testing corners and straightaways. Nothing too rowdy, but representative of the terrain the trails these modern cross-country bikes were intended to see.

Don't forget that timing is just one of many ways to judge a bike, and fast doesn't always mean it's the best for everyone.

Mike Levy: "I had my second-slowest total loop time when riding the Ranger, but my second-quickest descent time, just 1-second behind the Spur."

But the Ranger was instantly 'right' to me as soon as I coasted into the first descent, a sure sign that the package - geo, components and cockpit, suspension - suit my preferences, at least in this hazy category.

Those preferences lean towards a bike that's more alive and light-footed than stable and secure feeling, but not so much that I end up pin-balling down rocky trails even more than I usually do. Right now, it almost looks like it's on purpose, and on the Ranger, there were a handful of times when it actually was. Revel has landed on this fun middle ground where their new bike isn't quite the descending demon that the Spur is, but the difference between them was only noticeable to me on the roughest, fastest few hundred feet of some rides. I was going a bit quicker into the steep slabs and fast, choppy corners when I was on the Transition, but for those times when you're not pretending to be on an enduro bike, or if the descent is full of corners, especially the tight kind, the Ranger is in a league of its own.

If it's not scary-steep, the Ranger loves to dive into an impossibly tight switchback, and it gives you that close-to-the-deck feeling that provides loads of confidence. And back to that energy again - a stab at the pedals gets you moving instantly. While a long-travel cross-country rig will usually live up to that description, the Ranger rides nothing like that on the trail because, well, it isn't one.


Revel Ranger review Margus Riga photo


The Ranger is an interesting bike that sort of straddles two worlds. On one hand, it has this 'ready for anything' vibe, but on the other hand, I seemed to always want to pedal hard when I was on it. This bike doesn't want to do casual, relaxed laps, and that goes for both directions.

Okay, but would I WANT to do a cross-country race on the Ranger? I wouldn’t mind, sure, but I’d rather be on the Epic if my spring and summer were filled with number plates and cramping. The Ranger is fast, but it’s also ready for more than what most cross-country race courses can provide.


Pros

+ Very fun descender
+ Feels fast, efficient, and energetic on the trail

Cons

- Definitely favors the downhills, although not as much as the Spur
- Relatively heavy frame




The 2020 Pinkbike Field Test was made possible with clothing, protection, and support from Giro. Control tires provided by Schwalbe, and power meters provided by SRM. Filming took place at The Backyard pub in Squamish.



Photos: Margus Riga
Video: Jason Lucas, Cole Nelson, Max Barron

Posted In:
Reviews and Tech Videos Field Test Downcountry Bikes Revel Bikes Revel Ranger


Author Info:
mikelevy avatar

Member since Oct 18, 2005
2,032 articles
Report
Must Read This Week
Pole Bicycles Has Filed for Bankruptcy
58504 views
First Ride: The Sub-$600 RockShox Domain and Psylo Forks
43670 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
42435 views
Tree Root Pierces Harriet Harnden's Foot at Round 1 of the British National Downhill Series
41186 views
Pinkbike's DH Fantasy League: Get Your Team On The Line - Fort William is in TWO WEEKS!
36036 views
Randoms Round 1 - Sea Otter 2024
29057 views
Review: Race Face's Era Chainring Uses Steel, Carbon, & Aluminum
28872 views
Kona Bicycles' Parent Company Appoints New CFO, Intends to Sell Brand
28097 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

198 Comments
  • 75 1
 @Mike Levy "I'll let you guys in on a secret: Aside from sometimes having to confirm that I'm on the correct size, and assuming nothing strange is happening, I almost never even glance at a review bike's geometry chart until I'm deep into the testing process. I don't know how others do it, but I think that lets me be more open to what the bike is "telling me" me when I ride it. "

Bravo for taking this approach. Obviously a bike will give cues to it's intent by looking at it but riding it before forming an opinion seems the correct way to go for testing and especially for a shootout.

Also can you address which bike is best for big backcountry epics? That kind of ride is why I want an efficient, "light" bike. My XC racing days are behind me and I'll only do it again if my kids happen to want to start racing in a few years
  • 126 2
 I prefer to analyze geo charts and test ride to confirm all my armchair biases.
  • 5 0
 @whambat: Truth! Lol

Btw, seat angle nerds: If you crop so that one edge disects the bottom bracket you can easily discern seat angle by far back the saddle is from the edge of the pic.

Quick way to cut through some of the marketing fiction.

Surprising what you find.
  • 9 4
 when they plan to announce Revel is actually owned by Semenuk?
  • 3 0
 Yeah, I think too many people place way too much of an emphasis on individual numbers rather than seeing how all those little numbers perform together as a whole. Sometimes the numbers aren't what you expect, but the sh1t just works. That said, I do use some numbers (reach, head angle) as a general guideline, then go from there. I don't pay as much attention to seat tube angles as everyone here. Stuff just fits and works, and the way companies measure seat angles are a little suspect at times. I guess it helps being average size, too.
  • 18 1
 It's interesting that Levy's response toward working with new bikes is the same as mine in my job as a teacher. I put any negative feedback on kids from previous teachers in a folder and bury it. Many of those squirrelly crazies end up being my favorite students.
  • 2 0
 @heatproofgenie: I'm hunting for the same type of bike (XC-ish efficiency, but also able to descend without feeling nervous and comfortable on long rides).
Out of this bunch my guess would be the Epic EVO and I'm really looking forward to the review. On paper it looks like the perfect XC/trail bike blend.
The Santa Cruz Blur TR should be ready for a refresh very soon, and I would be surprised if Canyon doesn't release something aimed at the "downcountry" segment for 2021 as well since it is the perfect fit for most Northern European trails.
  • 2 0
 This is a MASSIVE market in South Africa. Older guys who do numerous stage or marathon events every year, where a XC "scalpel" is too sharp.
  • 2 0
 So like it’s the Zimmer frame of bikes @GDPipsqueak:
  • 2 0
 This thing looks like something I would prefer be on for a long marathon race in the outback, as you get tired a slacker head angle and more stable geo might save you from the mistakes that can happen in more technical terrain.
  • 2 0
 @ranke: teaching ftw, high five colleague
  • 1 0
 @fracasnoxteam: good luck this year! gonna be a little nuts!
  • 1 0
 @enduroNZ: Nail/Head. And zimmer frames go for a fortune here.
  • 36 3
 I’d love to see a field test of users bikes. Get the owners to tell you what they think is good/bad about their bike, what they think needs fixed/improved and how it compares to a current benchmark new bike. Then get the professional reviewers opinion on the same things. You’d get a view on: used vs new, owner opinion bias, calibration of professional reviewers range to yours (if new bike A is better than B, how does that calibrate to how bad an over worn tyre set is?). You could follow up by fixing the things each group recommended and seeing who knows most about what’s likely to make the biggest difference.
  • 5 0
 Great idea!!!
  • 7 0
 I think that while the user may have more familiarity with the bikes, the conscious and unconscious bias is too strong to get an "objective" review. There is a bunch of psychology behind cost justification; like those being hazed describing stronger affiliation to the frat to justify the pain they went through (this was an actual study). Same thing with a bike, which for most of us is a big cost, and then we justify that cost whether we know we are doing it or not and this shades our perceptions. Also, for many riders we ride bikes in vacuums without a wealth of other experience to compare. I'll never spend equal time on four or five different similar category bikes and be able to compare between- and whether crappy or not get very comfy and predictable on my current small stable. I agree though that a "user" type of review gives a better long term review as PB staff don't stick on them long enough to see what happens to the bearings after a full season of slosh, or if the tires that felt good for a few weeks disintegrate after a couple weeks of hot summer riding etc. I think both types are important but for a basic comparison between bikes would argue that this type of review has a lot to offer and perhaps more.
  • 3 0
 @snl1200: I’m proposing getting reviews from both groups (the owner riders and PB professional reviewers) on the exact same bikes: the owners ones as they are on the day. It would be so interesting to contrast the opinions and calibrate (with all the biases as you describe). Am I a fool as an owner to think a trick short stem worth it when the gear cables are really sticky? Is my 7 year old bike worse than a base model new bike and I just don’t know it? Is the fork I love set up really badly? Or have my small improvements over the last 7 years made it a solid, reliable bike with all the weaknesses of the original spec ironed out as I’ve replaced the worn out parts?
  • 2 0
 @wgm20: For sure! I think that would be a great idea. I would hope that the users rides would also not be sponsored riders but rather more typical users.
  • 6 0
 We are into this! We want to ride all those bikes on those trails too!
  • 4 0
 Check out the forum tab lol
  • 5 0
 @snl1200: 100% agree with this. My own personal experience had me ignore professional reviews in favors of friend's opinion's and reviews of bikes and parts. Looking back I realize I made some very poor decisions taking advice and opinions from friends over professional review information. Users tend to pepper reviews and opinions with their personal preferences, while a professional reviewer tends to be objective and has more data points to support their statements. My favorite example of when i should went with the professional review was when my friends talked me into swapping out a Marazochi Super T fork for a Stratos S7 on a bike i was purchasing. They were like the Super T is too small, its not strong enough, etc. We have all heard the S7 is soo cool and it works really well, its perfect for you. 6 months later i traded the S7 for a pair of Skis and than made a second mistake getting a Monster T.... When all long i should have stayed with the super T which was reviewed as a capable fork.

My preference at that time was for a reliable piece of equipment that worked well. I did not care about having the flashiest or newest piece of equipment or the most travel etc. Just wanted something that was reliable and effective which would have been the super T not any of the other forks. This was back in 2000 when i made this mistake.

The funny thing is when i had the S7 and Monster T, there was no way i would have ever admitted to them being totally wrong for what i wanted. i spoke highly of both items when i owned them to justify the expense of acquiring them. I would never admitted the S7 was Junk and the Monster T turned my bike into a heavy bulldozer that plowed straight down a trail but could not do much else.
  • 3 0
 @riklassen: Haha- speaking to my era! I remember swapping my Z1 with a Jr. T because everyone said I needed a triple clamp. I missed the Z1.
  • 2 0
 @snl1200: I loved the Z1.
  • 1 0
 Here’s a great example of something only a user would know: you have to remove the entire rear triangle of my bike to mount new brakes on it.
  • 30 3
 Is it just me or does anyone else want to the Ripley compared to these bikes? Just seems like that bike hits everything on the nose and all of these give up something different in comparison.
  • 27 20
 The Ripley will not descend better than the Spur or Ranger no matter what the Ibis fanboys tell you.
  • 3 0
 Ditto. But then again, maybe that's why it's been left out... pretty well known already that it checks all the boxes. It does for me, at least.
  • 3 0
 @gus6464: Willing to believe that but how so and on what kind of terrain? Geo? Suspension kinematics? In terms of downhill ability comparison would it go Spur-Ranger-Ripley and then reverse it for climbing performance? Or does the Ripley actually sit closer to the Spur/Ranger on descents and do better on the climbs still?
  • 8 0
 @gus6464: Slacker and just as long as the Ranger, why not?
  • 4 1
 @gus6464: while I will agree with you that the Spur and Ranger are great descenders for their class, it’s hard to not think that the Ripley with a bigger fork and a slacker HA wouldn’t be slightly better on the descent. If you put the same SID fork or a step cast 34 on the Ripley, and thereby steepening the HA as well, I’d bet they be all pretty much in the same on the DH.
  • 8 8
 Go ride a Ripley. It's a pretty dull bike on the downs. Good climber though.
  • 3 3
 @gus6464: dull compared to what bike(s)?

I think it's great fun downhill, very playful, still capable.
  • 5 1
 @gus6464: Based on what? Degree slacker head tube and more travel on the Ripley would suggest to me it ought to be a better descender than the Revel. Little steeper HT than the Spur but again little more travel.

Recently picked up a Ripley and absolutely love the thing. Seriously considered the Spur but went with suspension kinematics over weight.
  • 5 5
 @whambat: I rode the Ripley at a weekend festival where Ibis was there. Took it out multiple times on different days. I even asked the Ibis rep about putting a 120mm fork on it and he did not recommend it because he was uncomfortable with the BB height.
  • 4 0
 @gus6464: yeah, it’s a pretty low BB for sure. Maybe the quick demo shock setup didn’t get dialed for you, I’ve demoed the new Ripley and liked it a lot on the descents. The old one just felt like an old school long legged XC bike and kinda blah. The new Ripley felt really similar to the Evil Following, which I also think deserves a top recommendation in this category of fun short travel trail bikes.
  • 3 0
 @gus6464: Yeah, still hard to believe it's that much more dull than the Spur or this Ranger without some objective metrics. Point being, if you're looking for a short-travel precision instrument that can keep up the boys on enduro bikes (if you have the skill) and still throw some fast tires on it and do a race or huge day (if you have the fitness) just seems like you should err towards the better climbing bike without a weight penalty.

Also, Ripley/Spur have equal BB height and Ranger is only 3mm higher.
  • 5 0
 @gus6464:

What are the reasons that you make this claim, especially since you almost certainly have not ridden a Ranger?
  • 3 4
 @whambat: Ripley with a slacker HTA is a Spur with a slacker STA. Clint Gibbs has determined that a Spur is at least as fast as a 90mm Niner RKT as well as being less sketchy and fatiguing, and his terrain doesn't appear to include any rough descending. Professional reviewer Levy seems surprised that a bike with a stem shorter than its fork offset isn't that great a climber, and fails to note that, at 5'10, a Medium Spur is also recommended. Would you like your trail bike to be faster?--remove headset spacers. Would you like your sub-66 degree HTA 29" to turn faster?--turn your wider handlebar faster. Why not get the more versatile bike? With its shorter cockpit and slacker HTA, a Tallboy will climb and descend better, and is available for purchase, unlike the Spur, which is 4+ months out, according to Transition website.
  • 3 2
 @ceecee: Agreed and it's probably a tossup but I think you go with whatever rides best uphill in that situation, for this class of bike. Most people will be limited by their abilities and not the bike on the descents.

I think Tallboy is too heavy but probably a great bike also. Leadtime on Spur is a bummer.
  • 6 0
 I've been trying to not like Ibis because I think their pricing is outrageous, but after multiple demos of both the Ripley and Ripmo, its hard to find anything negative to say about the bikes. Only negative I can think of is that you need to dial the suspension in on the DW-Link just right to get the best out of it. I've ridden Horst Link bikes for 12yrs, tried all the latest and greatest, and the Ibis bikes just straight-up outperform them in my non-professional opinion. The suspension design on the Ranger looks similar, so I'm not surprised that Levy is gushing about it.
  • 4 0
 @SlodownU: I used to think their pricing was high, but now it seems everyone's caught up. Ibises are the same price as everything else except mail order.
  • 3 0
 @ICKYBOD: yeah, when you can get a Deore 12speed Carbon Ripley for $4200, I’d say they are competitively priced now. I used to knock Ibis for their pricing. Can’t do that anymore.
  • 5 0
 Having owned 4 Ripleys, OG v1, OG v2, V4 and LS v3, Riot and many other bikes, the only suspension I like better than Ibis DW link is is Canfield CBF. Got to ride one to understand.
  • 1 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Sure, but that's like saying "Between my Ferrari and my Lamborghini, I preferred the Lamborghini". Smile I liked the CBF suspension on both my Riot and my Balance, but I've set more PR's on my Ripmo on all the same trails, despite being in worse shape this year due to an injury. They are both excellent suspensions.
  • 22 2
 So the Ranger is efficient, yet slow. It is heavy, yet set some PR's were set on other trails. It is responsive like the living link and DW link and also feels like a rocket ship but descends better than your average rocket ship. I really am not sure what I am reading. For an all-around bike, I am liking the Ryve 115, the Ranger, and the Epic Evo. After reading this field test, I am no further along on settling on one bike.
  • 5 2
 I am with you here. I have removed the Epic Evo just because I want something different than the 50 odd Epics that will be at all the events. Seems like Ranger is a better light trail bike, and Ryve is the better 'XC' bike? But at its weight, I would be tempted to go up to something like Ibis Ripley instead of the Ranger and get a bit more capability for all around riding. That said, I am leaning towards the Spot Ryve and a bit more 'XC' since I also have a Fezzari La Sal Peak to take on bigger things.
  • 3 1
 Agree very confusing review.
  • 1 0
 @mikelevy would you please expand on what makes this a different rocket ship versus other rocket ships? Is the Ryve going to climb that much better and the Ranger descend like a champ? What are the efficiency differences?
  • 1 1
 @TazMinianDevil: Good point about the Ripley. It's a very competitively lightweight Trail Bike, of which I think the Ranger also fits.
  • 5 0
 They're splitting hairs at this point. Like always go test ride them for yourself if you're not sure, but I got a feeling all three of these could do what you need them to do.
  • 17 2
 Best looking bike in the test? Not so sure about that, my eyes are definitely drawn to the lines on the Spur over the Revel. Good looking no doubt, but the Spur just stands head and shoulders above the rest in my opinion.
  • 3 0
 Transition completely nailed it with their new gen. I preferred the look of the alloy frames over the old carbon frames, but having seen the new sentinel in person, the pictures don’t do it justice.
  • 2 0
 exactly my thought when I heard that...Spur is probably the best looking bike at the moment.
  • 16 0
 Video is still private.... Smile
  • 58 0
 Maybe they are still having to blur out some of the scenes of Levy in Lycra to get past the censors.
  • 9 0
 Fixed now, enjoy!
  • 11 1
 It seems like a good bit of weight is added with the number of bearings and links required in more sophisticated suspension designs like CBF, DW, etc... > For this category bike, does the added traction / performance justify the complexity? The other downcountry bikes in this test (with flex pivots) have much lighter frames (even the Spur which recorded the fastest descending time) ...

I'm a big fan of DW, VPP, CBF etc on longer travel bikes... I'm just wondering if there are benefits for these shorter travel machines?
  • 5 0
 golden question. methinks PB is afraid to tackle that one..... maybe a great topic for one of their upcoming podcasts?!
  • 2 1
 Agreed. The complexity of the CBF (and weight penalty) makes sense on a long travel rig but not on a short travel rig.
  • 10 0
 We think there is a ton of benefit! This is the first time CBF has been used in a short travel format and it blew us away in prototyping. It was a no-brainer to bring it to market. We've been having so much fun on this bike!! Hopefully you can get on a demo soon and see for yourself. Cheers!
  • 3 0
 @RevelBikes: If I get back to Colorado this fall I will take you up on that! Hopefully Red Hill Trails will be open...
  • 2 0
 @WasatchEnduro: I've suggested that for a podcast. Be surprised if they do it and offer definitive opinions, and I get why they would shy away from doing so. My next bike may very well be a Revel, but with CBF, Switch-Infinity, and other similar designs, the question is always whether increased complexity delivers enough benefit justify itself. Never seems to be addressed head-on in the reviews, as well done as they are otherwise.
  • 10 0
 Hey @mikelevy, how does the Ranger compare to the Rocky Mountain Element in fun feel and descending stability?
  • 2 0
 This is a great question.
  • 9 2
 Unpopular opinion: AS values have gone too far to the point of being counterproductive for how a lot of folks ride.

Fast feeling =/= fast all the time. Sure, high AS is great on gravel climbs, but on technical climbs there's way more to it than just having "efficient" suspension. It's the same reason that pumping your tires up to 35 psi feels zippy, but doesn't actually make you faster.
  • 1 0
 Funny you mention this because the Canfield Balance system is aimed at 100% AS rather than 120-130 that we see on certain bikes like Yeti etc.
  • 3 0
 @LeoTProductions: This. Keeping AS at 100% still means it pedals like a hard tail when seated, but it will bob more if standing. But it also means it keeps traction better under power.

I’m a seated climber, so for me, CBF is the best suspension by far.
  • 1 0
 @LeoTProductions: Yep, that's why I brought it up here. Although personally I'm happy with less than 100%.

@eicca: For me, I'm not even after "pedals like a hard tail when seated", I'll gladly take a small efficiency loss to maintain traction. My normal climbs are steep, rooty, rocky and often damp. I ride a Knolly Fugitive with a coil which in no way feels snappy or fast on the climbs, yet easily outpaces the high AS bikes I've ridden on the same routes. Of course, on a long gravel slog it would be a different story, but I have a lever for that.
  • 8 1
 This bike but in a mullet and you have my money. At 5'7, I care more about being able to jump and move around without rubber up my ass, than the .5 sec advantage that a 29 in the back would give me. Hopefully there are others like me and these bikes start being made.
  • 1 0
 You can mullet this bike yourself, its fits 27.5 also
  • 5 0
 @DirtAndPark228: like there's a flip chip? I know a 275 wheel fits, but it would lower the BB, etc.
  • 1 0
 Offset bearings in the rear shock can be used to raise the BB as well. Smaller back wheel and 1 or two offset bearings should give you some customizability.
  • 8 1
 I guess I don't see the point of a "downcountry" bike that doesn't climb well, or isn't efficient. This is not a category that I'm particularly interested in, so I don't have skin in the game (take my comment with a grain of salt). If you are sacrificing climbing ability but have a competent descender, then why not just run a bike with 130-140? All the bikes in this range these days are competent ascenders (relatively). It's silly to think that travel this long is 'taking the fun out' of trail riding. In the end...what is this for? It is a beautiful bike, however.
  • 4 0
 I could see in areas with a lot of smooth trails. You just don't need much suspension for certain areas. And I am sure this would still be livelier than somthing in the 130mm range
  • 2 2
 That's my impression after riding some of these too. They handle like a trail/enduro bike, but don't have the travel to back it up. You end up getting neither the agility and speed of an XC bike in tamer terrain nor the "plow through rock gardens at high speed" capability of an enduro bike in steeper terrain.
  • 3 0
 @dthomp325: Agreed, which is why I think you go with the best climber/slow tech terrain/liveliest riding bike that might also be light enough for racing, if you're into that. I don't think XC race bikes are worth riding without racing and if you're not interested in a hardtail, it can still be nice to have a different style of bike (if you can afford it).
  • 1 0
 I was thinking the exact same thing, though I think I'm biased by where I ride -- lots of rocks and drops and technical gnar. Maybe if you lived in Indiana or Iowa or Wisconsin these would be the ticket? I'm basing that on a single ride I did in Indiana on my old Specialized Enduro -- I was over-biked by a million. (And this was the 2010 model -- not the big sleds they're selling now). I was thinking the whole time that if I lived there, I would need a smaller bike. Maybe 120mm travel? But I have no use for these bikes here, where I'm at.
  • 3 0
 @TheR: These bikes seem way to aggressive for Midwest terrain. Agility is key in flat, but super twisty Midwest style trails.
  • 1 0
 @dthomp325: Could be. I'm just trying to throw out some ideas of where they might be ridden, because they aren't aggressive enough for the riding I do here. The seem to be in some no-man's land. And you're right -- the trail I rode in Indiana was very twisty -- agility would be important there.
  • 1 0
 Midwest rider here (Illinois), and these bikes look perfect for where I ride. Currently on a Canyon Spectral, and I want to keep the geo I have but with a little less travel for a snappier ride. Most of our trails are super twisty and windy with both technical climbs and really fast, root/rock filled (although not super long) descents. I rarely use all the travel on my current bike, but having the longer wheel base and slacker HTA when you need to descend a 45+ degree root filled twisty descent for 50 yards or so would be amazing. I would love to see these bikes pitted against the SC Tallboy!
  • 3 0
 I don't think that this review is saying that the Ranger doesn't climb well or isn't efficient. What I took from it is that relative to the best climbing bikes in this test, it's not as efficient and or as good a technical climber. In the written review Levy says that it feels like a rocketship going up.
  • 9 0
 For those that care:
SB115: 27.17lb / 12.3kg
Ranger: 26.23lb / 11.89kg
Ripley: 26.07lb / 11.82kg
Scalpel SE1: 25.27lb / 11.46kg
Spur: 24.74lb / 11.22kg
  • 2 0
 Still don't quite get why the Spur is 1/2 lb lighter than the SE1. SE1 has a slightly lighter frame, carbon rims, carbon bar. Both have very similar SID variants.

Is XT that much heavier than XO1?
  • 3 0
 @jesseth: Spur has carbon bars too. DT XR1700s on the Spur are pretty light--I wouldn't be surprised if the carbon wheels on the SE1 are heavier. Alloy crank on the SE1 might be heavier too.

The real story is the SB115 is 2.43lbs heavier (and $900 more) than the spur.
  • 1 0
 @jesseth: XT is similar in weight to GX. Not sure if that explains the whole difference.
  • 8 0
 I think Revel really missed an opportunity to label the different specs as The Green Ranger, The Blue Ranger, or just the straight up Power Ranger...
  • 10 0
 Saving power ranger for the ebike version
  • 14 0
 Single speed version would be the Lone Ranger.
  • 6 0
 All those water bottle mounts ????????????.

This looks seriously geared towards a lot of the riding I used to do. Long days in the backcountry climbing 4-8k feet with old school rooty/ rocky trails with lots of mounts for bottles full of Skratch. (Someday, my kid may return to school and I get to do that again). Also, the room for big tires is a welcome site for years like this year when our trails are dry, dusty, and inches deep of moon dust.
  • 8 0
 Question marks were supposed to be drewl emojis.
  • 6 0
 Revel seems to really be killing it at the moment. The Rascal and Rail get nothing but rave reviews, and now this bike seems to hit the "light-weight trail bike" target spot on. In term of geo, it's really interesting to see the combination of long reach and relatively (by modern standards) steep head angle. Sounds like it worked just fine, but I'd be curious to see Levy talk about that a bit. Did you feel like you needed to weight the front like you have to on slacker bikes with long reaches, or did it lend itself to more neutral handling?
  • 8 0
 Those of us that know, have been praising the magic canfield suspension for years!
  • 9 1
 herbal medicine its awesome Wink
  • 4 0
 Been waiting for this review. Since you have ridden both the Spot Ryve 115 and Revel Ranger; which is the better bike for Clydesdale who likes to climb, enjoys racing but not winning Cat 2, and do all day epic rides with plenty of roots, rocks and tight corners?
  • 6 3
 Ryve is a creaky bike with unusual linkage...the living link cannot be removed or serviced off the rear triangle. The ranger I feel would provide better tracking and traction over roots and rocks. I have not experienced the ranger but the other revel bikes remain quiet, and the suspension feels amazingly efficient and very active, as levy suggested. It just feels different than anything else, in a good way. The ryve is sweet, but I prefer traditional pivot hardware that is easily serviced. The ranger has this and the ryve doesnt. If creaks bother you, I would lean toward ranger. Spot has great customer service, and so does revel. I just prefer the cbf suspension to anything I have ever felt. And I like being able to easily service every part of my bike - or for your shop guys...
  • 2 0
 @takeiteasyridehard: Will you please expand on the Ryve's creaks? Is the noise coming from the press-fit BB and the living link? I am in the same spot as Taz and have been trying to figure out if a Ryve would be that much better for climbs on non-technical single track and the Ranger would be that much better for the downhill. The Ranger is heavy, but it has a bunch of water bottle mounts and that is darn nifty.
  • 5 0
 @thegoodword: I was able to resolve the creak by removing, cleaning, and reinstalling everything on the linkage. Regardless of the living link, the linkage design is unique and not as easy to remove as most other designs. There are two tapered axles that bolt together internally to form the main pivot axles for the upper and lower links where they connect to the front triangle. You have to hammer on the bolt to remove one half, and then use a punch to remove the other - the taper intentionally wedges them into the front triangle. The rear triangle cannot be separated from the front until you have done this. I personally found this to be an unnecessary design element that I would not like on my own bike. They must be installed dry, otherwise they can get stuck in the frame, which makes me wonder about corrosion in the long term doing the same thing. It just seems like a design that you will end up having to live with creaks, and may not be serviceable as long as others. Other than that, it is a sweet bike. I just think there are more reliable solutions to achieve similar ride characteristics, and I dont like the linkage design from a serviceability standpoint. Spot claims there is basically no way for the living link to creak, and their new version had a threaded bb shell. I just have not seen a revel creak yet, but I have seen a brand new spot ryve 115 creak. I also prefer the feel of the revel suspension. May be minor things depending on how long you plan to own the bike or whether you care about creaks. I keep my bikes a long time, and service them a fair amount. Some people replace bikes often and never service linkage. For me, the revel is better. The spot is still a very nice bike.
  • 3 0
 My ryve is totally silent. It’s a fantastically fast climber and punchs way above its weight on the downs. It’s a very balanced bike. @thegoodword:
  • 1 0
 @Stormrider303: It is good to hear that the Ryve is a balanced bike. I have a SB 5.5 that handles everything, but is overkill for my area's sandy trails and a bit of hog for our long climbs. I am inclined to lean towards a better climbing bike. I wish I understood the difference between an efficient rocketship like the Ranger and an efficient rocketship like the Ryve. Surely they can't be the same.
  • 5 0
 Frame + shock package seems like pretty good value compared to others.

So, @mikelevy in the last two field tests it seems the longer the bike, the more you've liked it. How many times has @mikekazimer said "I told you so"?
  • 12 0
 I remind him every single day.
  • 8 0
 Colorado sure is getting a lot of good bike companies these days.
  • 6 0
 Tax friendlier than California and Washington. For now.
  • 5 0
 We sure do love being here!
  • 4 0
 I think to get the most out of this review, you need to read (or re-read) a bunch of Levy’s reviews—especially of the relevant bikes not in this test (Hei Hei, Spot, Ripley). If you’re racing long, technical courses, and you’re not as skilled as a rider like Levy, then a little more help on the downs is potentially worth some sacrifice on the ups. This bike looks to be lively, fun, and “raceable”.
  • 1 0
 Yes, we appreciate the increase in bike comparisons @Mikelevy, but as a little feedback, recent articles have been also expecting a lot from our collective reading retention & Perhaps overly trusting our abilities to parse the hierarchy and
  • 1 0
 *no “and”...
Except Thanks Mike and Sarah & team!
  • 4 0
 Given the reviewers size and some of the comments in this series of reviews, I wonder if a medium would have been a better fit. Perhaps a comparison of medium vs. large would shed some light.
  • 3 0
 Same with the Spur. A Med Spur and Ranger = Large other bikes in test.
  • 5 0
 I don't think this really stacks up that well against the sub24# bikes, but, I wonder how the Ranger compares to the GG TrailPistol SL.
  • 8 1
 Well I'll tell ya one thing, you can't build the Ranger into a 160/170mm 29er shred sled, but you also can't build the TPSL into anything lighter than 26.5lbs.
  • 5 0
 A local shop just picked up Revel and I was able to take a close look- I've gotta say- those are some crisp looking frames. Really impressive IMHO.
  • 3 0
 I keep thinking I want the Ranger, but I'm a 200 pound smasher that breaks wheels, frames and forks, is pretty sensetive to the sensation of flex and I shouldn't be near a SID of any generation. Then I look at the Rascal... I had a Riot, loved it, but it was too flexy and I broke one. I also keep thinking about Evil Followngs and Knolly Fugitives... lots of great bikes out there right now.
  • 2 0
 I'm thinking Rascal might be the ticket.
  • 3 0
 I weigh close to you and loved the Rascal (Note: it was only a 2hr demo)...actually, I can see what Levy was getting at regarding weight/speed as the Rascal was really easy to get up to speed and "felt" fast. I was really surprised when I was told it weighed >30# (in XL)...b/c it rode much lighter.
  • 4 0
 The 35 SID might be better than any of the other generations. It has to be substantially stiffer.

I used to break stuff all the time (I'm 215 at something close to "race weight", quite a bit more during winter fat-ness) and then I became a better rider. I'd totally rock a SID 35 on short travel slappy bike.

Personally if I was looking at a bike of this type, I'd strongly consider a Top Fuel with a Sid 35 at 120mm or Pike at 130mm, maybe with the new 9point8 slackdaddy headset thing. Straight downtube and full carbon rear end is going to be one of the stiffer platforms in this category.
  • 9 1
 @j-t-g: GG Trail Pistol. You'd essentially be riding a 160mm Enduro frame with light weight components.
  • 2 1
 Pivot Switchblade for you my friend.
  • 2 0
 @PHeller: Second this. As a heavy hitter, I went in this direction. I have been very happy with the strength, durability, and stiffness (though I went with the Smash).
  • 2 0
 @PHeller: believe it or not weight matters. The trail pistol is pretty clearly in another category in multiple factors.
  • 1 0
 yo dude. I weigh 215, enjoy the steeps, like to race XC, and bought a Following. Had a Hightower LT CC beforehand. No regrets.
  • 2 0
 @j-t-g: It might matter, but not when compared to other similarly heavy builds.

Which is exactly why the Ranger in this mix is a bit questionable. It's not competitively weighted as a XC bike. The Trail Pistol SL is also 26ish pounds, why did it not get included? or the Izzo, for that matter?

My point is, the Trail Pistol doesn't compete with the Epic, Supercaliber, or other sub-25lbs whippets, but it does sit squarely in the middle of a field of lightweight 110-130mm "trail bikes" that all weigh between 25-27lbs.
  • 1 0
 260 lbs on a mega 275. Haven't broke it yet. I keep saying I will lose weight and win races.
  • 2 0
 What is everyone’s thoughts on putting fox suspension front and rear on the Ranger. I know it’s a slight weight penalty (sid vs 34 stepcast) but anything else I should be considering?
It’s spec’ed with RS but they offer a fox build for slightly more $.
  • 5 0
 So what is there to gain going with the ranger or spur vs a tallboy? Looking for that perfect "backcountry epic" bike.
  • 2 0
 No personal experience but I’m frayed they both pedal better than tallboy
  • 1 0
 *I’ve read, not “I’m frayed” Razz
  • 6 2
 The Tallboy has a pretty supple suspension for a 120mm bike - I really enjoy mine on technical climbs where traction is crucial, but the overall length and 65.5HA do make for a bike that requires a bit more work when things get tight and janky. I'll also stick my neck out and say that the Tallboy's 120mm feels like more.

So the Spur is lighter, and the Ranger is a bit sharper handling and easier to manage on climbs.

The Tallboy is going to descend better than either - by a noticeable margin, but it will require a bit more effort everywhere else.

FWIW I run my Tallboy with a 140mm Fox36 in the Low setting, with the saddle scooted almost all the way forward on the rails to get a good seated climbing position. It's a super fun aggressive short-travel trail bike that handles [very] steep terrain without blinking. If you enjoy riding a shorter travel bike like its an enduro bike from time to time, buy a Tallboy. Unlike an enduro bike, it's still loads of fun on tamer / flatter terrain.
____

I stopped by Revel HQ this summer with hopes to demo the Ranger, but was only able to ride it in the parking lot.
The folks at Revel were great, and I am seriously considering buying my next bike from them.
I do wonder whether their frame weights will come down for their 2nd generation carbon frames, but I'd rather have a slightly overbuilt frame that won't break than a featherweight that has too much flex for aggressive riding.
  • 2 0
 @WoodenCrow: I feel like thats mainly down to build specs, such as the lighter weight/faster rolling rekon & dissector spec'd on the spur/ranger vs dhr & dhf spec'd on the tallboy. Plus that sid fork definitely saves some weight compared to the pike on a tallboy. Frame only weights are all pretty similar though.
  • 1 1
 @nrb251: You could put the Tallboy on a diet and get down to 26-27lbs, but that same diet gets the Spur to 24-25lbs.

The Tallboy as well as the SB115 (only included in this review cuz its new and "close" to DC) are Trail Bikes.

The Ranger wants to be DC... buts its hanging on the edge cuz of that frame weight.

I think the market is narrowing in on what constitutes a DC bike, and one component is frame weight... needs to be under 5.5 pounds (with shock).
  • 1 0
 @vaedwards: Really enjoyed the tallboy v4 I demo'd and seems like a great companion to my bronson. Ideally would demo a spur and ranger to compare but I don't think that'll be possible anytime soon unfortunately.
Sounds like you've taken your build in the opposite direction, but thinking a tallboy with a 130mm fox 34 Grip 2 and a nice light wheelset with dissector front & rekon rear will pedal just as well as any of these.
  • 2 0
 @nrb251: I'd probably just get a Ranger, Spur, or Ripley if I was going that direction. I think the design of the Tallboy just begs for a slightly burlier build (As Levy keeps saying in these reviews, there's a certain combination of geometry, suspension tune, frame stiffness etc that defines the personality of these bikes. I think the personality of the Tallboy just screams for burlier components to bring out its full potential. I owned the Tallboy 3 as well, and it was a totally different bike- way more appropriate for a 34 w/ lighter tires etc)
  • 5 1
 Using the same tires on every bike for the testing, really shines a bright light on how much effect tires have.
  • 3 0
 I think they should have moved the tires up to the next level of grip for the DC bikes. Putting XC tires on limits the effectiveness of the review... meaning the results may have been different with proper DC tires.
  • 2 1
 @Baller7756: great point! I also think the wheels would matter almost as much as the tires. I know the Cannondale has an offset dish, but I'm sure that could have been easily remedied probably would have only needed two or three wheel sets tops
  • 3 1
 Also if you’re looking for a trail bike 140mm or under, Should I go for the spur or the YT Izzo? I feel like those two bikes would be make great back to back comparison.
  • 5 1
 That blue SID is so clean!
  • 2 0
 I went just a tiny bit heart in mouth when Levy's rear wheel came up high over a rise at 5:05. Regularly threatens to Friday Fail but never does! Smile
  • 1 0
 @mikelevy wondering if you tested the new YT Izzo as well...seems to be same class of bike. Interesting to get your feedback here. Any plans? I´m currently looking for exactly that kinda bike.
  • 2 0
 @pinkbike can we see a comparison with the more progressive down-country bikes and the shorter travel trail bikes (ranger/spur)? Just how capable are they?
  • 4 1
 How is "Definitely favors the downhills" a con?
  • 17 1
 Because its worse on the ups. And thats a problem for a short travel bike. If it was only about the downhill, we have DH and Enduro bikes for that.
  • 5 0
 It's not a con for an enduro or trail bike, but that's not what this is.
  • 3 3
 Assuming a steeper seat angle would have helped.
  • 1 2
 @samimerilohi: Is the poor climbing efficiency mostly on the gravel roads? I kinda got that impression from Levy's review. If it climbs well on techy stuff and descends well, then it's just fine. If I want efficient gravel road climbing, I'll get gravel bike. Still a shame they made the HTA so steep, but I guess you could bump it with an angleset and a taller fork.
  • 1 0
 @nurseben: And you could mitigate some of that on a gravel road by fitting Levy’s favourite accessory—the lock-out. Lol.
  • 3 1
 A con is a con if it is a con for you. If it isn't, you can ignore it (or go mad in the comment section). Like "no water bottle mount (inside the front triangle)". If you'd ride with a hydration pack anyway (and might only use the underside downtube mount for a pump and tools) then that is not an issue. "Definitely favors the downhills" is a positive way that it is particularly good on the downhills, but the uphill/level stuff is being compromised. Just like with the water bottle, for some this is a deal breaker, for others it isn't.

So basically, a review could help as a guide but before you sell your kidneys it may be wise to do some thinking and reflection for yourself too. Pinkbike is amazing, but they're horribly incapable of doing all the spoonfeeding... Which may be a con for some, hopefully not for everyone Wink .
  • 2 3
 @vinay: So then if you're reading this review and evaluating it's application to you, then you must know Levy; don't we all? Having ridden with him, you know what he likes and dislikes, so I'm sure you got this.
  • 7 0
 @vinay: When levy refers to multiple bikes as "rocketships" and barely expounds on one bike's climbing or descending prowess versus another in the same rocketship class, it is a far more than spoon feeding that is necessary.
  • 2 9
flag sanchofula (Aug 17, 2020 at 11:27) (Below Threshold)
 @thegoodword: Ahhh, you mean he's telling us that all of these bikes are good. Well yeah, of course, who'd want to give PB a bike to test and get a negative review?

So here's the thing: We all more or less know how a bike will ride based on suspension, design, geo, build, etc... Add in the mfg and their design history, it's not hard to guess at the target population.

For example, is anyone surprised that the Transition Spur is the most capable downhill bike in this group or that the Specialized Epic is the most capable climber in this group? Of course not, so what do we really get from these reviews?

What we get is eye candy, something to look at and something to think about, perhaps it gives us ideas about what to try when we go shopping, but mostly we're window shopping.

What I got from these reviews: The Spur is the only bike in this group that I'd consider because I can climb on anything, but I need a bike with real downhill chops once I get to the top. Perhaps if the Ranger was a little more progressive in the geo department it'd be an option, but that steep HTA is a no go for me.
  • 1 2
 So the Canfield suspension design only shines on the downs? This review and the bike magazine review of the rascal don't exactly give glowing climbing reviews.

"But hey, just ignore me if you do most of your climbing on gravel roads."-best line of the review imo
  • 4 0
 I got the opposite from this review?
  • 3 1
 I thought that the design was to be a somewhat efficient climber, but better at technical climbs than grinds. That being said, the whole bike makes the picture, not just the suspension design.
  • 3 0
 Given how well my 34lb Canfield Balance pedals, I expect most of us will be blown away by the Ranger. As long as the rider stays seated it literally feels like a hard tail. Standing and hammering bobs a bit because the anti-squat is balanced right around 100%.
  • 3 0
 Why was it slow uphill for you @mikelevy?
  • 5 7
 As to what @wgm20 said (this just snowballed into a bigger post), Get the average person who doesn't spend a crazy amount on their bike and get them to be like "yeah this is worth the money!" or "no this is way overpriced for the average person go buy x and potentially upgrade i, j, k." I reviewed a whole bunch of skis for a company i worked at for sporting goods and basically some 700$ skis were 90% of what a 1500$ ski was doing. But of course since these are probably paid they won't be like oh go buy this bike that we reviewed a year or two ago that we think would ride similar or better to this one. I take all these reviews with a grain of salt. The skis I ride were released in 2012 and hadn't been updated until 2020 and the changes they made didn't make them ride as aggressive as their previous generation. It looks like the bike industry is trying to move forward but sometimes newer isn't better.
  • 2 2
 Oh and we also had a few people on the skis, everyone from a short 5'4" weighing ~120lbs to some 6'7" giants weighing ~250 so we could figure out how it skied across different heights & weights to get a good overall picture.
  • 7 0
 Cool story?
  • 1 3
 @roma258: constructive criticism?
  • 1 0
 Agreed on the looks! Revel seems to be killing it.
On a side note, does anyone know the song in the middle?
  • 1 0
 Meant second to last song, with the violin.
  • 1 1
 @SimbaandHiggins: shazam: exists
  • 4 0
 @SimbaandHiggins: circle of life -Elton john
  • 1 0
 I'm like that "where's my carbon Smuggler" guy except instead of a carbon Smuggler I want my slo-mo huck to flat video.
  • 2 0
 "It just wants to party" Well who doesn't?
  • 5 3
 XC people
  • 1 0
 @friendlyfoe: You got me.
  • 5 4
 All of those bikes super cool, however what's freaks me out is SRAM only builds;
  • 1 0
 I keep hoping a bear stands up in the brush behind them. that woud be cool...
  • 1 0
 Has Levy coined another trend... "Part-time cross-country"?
  • 2 0
 Yt izzo, sb 130/115, following..nice genre
  • 1 0
 How dare you make me read words!?
  • 1 0
 Is it just me or is the video private?
  • 1 2
 Very nice bike for the right rider! And that weird shade of baby blue only on the suspension - nothing a can of BBQ spray paint couldn't fix.
  • 1 0
 Can we get some actual pictures of the bike? Not here from Levy pics.
  • 4 4
 Soo in conclusion, buy the spur
  • 1 0
 Spot Ryve 115???
  • 1 0
 Me too
  • 1 1
 What do BTR bikes think of the name? Will Revel start a petition?
  • 3 2
 spur it is
  • 1 0
 Ripley it is, for me at least. I want a light trail bike that favors climbing.
  • 2 0
 @hllclmbr: fair but im interested in these because they climb way better than my current bike for the big rides, but i still want the bike to be the best descender in its class
  • 3 4
 Over $1k more, 2lbs heavier than the Spur. Hard pass.
  • 4 7
 GG Pistola would be a good side by side comparison with the Spur and the Ranger
  • 8 3
 I wish GG would ditch their gimmicks and make purpose built bikes, they're obviously very innovative over there.
  • 3 3
 @mariomtblt: What gimmicks are you referring to? They're a very small firm making their own bikes. There's a lot of cost associated with creating new molds for purpose-built bikes. That being said, they've created something pretty cool in the industry that lets the consumer have more options than ever before starting with whichever platform they start with. That's not a gimmick to me. That's innovative. Are you saying they should just do what everyone else does?
  • 3 9
flag sanchofula (Aug 17, 2020 at 10:21) (Below Threshold)
 @mariomtblt: You may be confused by what they're doing at GG.

The ability to run four different stays, two different lower headset cups, and two different headset positions is far from being gimmicky.

These "gimmicks" allow GG to build bikes that allow for multiple wheelsets and mullet all while maintain appropriate geometry.

Five bikes builds to rule them all: Pistol(a), Shred Dogg, Mega Trail, Smash, Gnarvana.

Get one or get them all, mix and match, do it your way!

So yeah, GG has got it going on, no gimmickry necessary.
  • 1 1
 @spaztwelve:I guess yeah, they market the cost cutting as "ability to customize" and that comes off as a bit disingenuous even if its in good faith. Their automated process is so unique in the industry though that I think there is room for something that yes is like "everyone else", because it works. And I think they would excel in it tbh.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.139855
Mobile Version of Website